IMPR

OVING R

EADING

COMPREHENSIO

N

THROUGH V

OCABULARY

PREP

ER

I C C

. PO

WE

LL

, ED

72

01

/ 02

, F AL

L 2

01

1/ S

PR

I NG

20

12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Statement of the Problem

2. Current Methodology

3. Theoretical Basis

4. Review of Related Literature

5. Statement of Hypothesis

6. Experimental Design

7. Threats to Validity

8. Statistical Analysis

9. Sources

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

During my time as both a reading and writing tutor and a fifth

grade student teacher, I have come to notice a disparity between

student phonemic awareness and reading comprehension levels.

Students who regularly display a positive grasp of phonic decoding

skills are not always able to comprehend and explain what they

have just read. Based on these observations I am interested in

investigating techniques which purport to increase student

comprehension levels. The current model for reading

comprehension instruction is the reading workshop – a model in

which there is one particular gap: vocabulary reinforcement.

CURRENT METHODOLOGY

The current instructional model for teaching and encouraging reading comprehension is called the reading workshop.

The reading workshop involves the modeling of various strategies such as monitoring for comprehension, activating background knowledge, asking questions, inferring meaning, determining importance, and summarizing.

THEORETICAL BASIS

The basis for the reading workshop model can be traced to Vygotsky, who emphasized social interaction as a necessary component of learning. (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001)

LITERATURE REVIEW

Positive gains in reading comprehension:

• Oral reading techniques (Hinchley & Levy, 1988)

• Make predictions when reading, generate questions about the text, summarize what was read (Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye, 1990)

• Emphasizing higher-order thinking (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003)

• Cooperative learning (Uttero, 1988)

• Exposure to reading strategies before being presented with instruction [5th graders] (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005)

LITERATURE REVIEW

Negative gains in reading comprehension:

• Enriched reading experiences by exposing students to books in their areas of interest, daily supported independent reading of challenging self‐selected books using differentiated reading instruction, and interest‐based choice opportunities in reading (Reis, McCoach, Coyne, Schreiber, Eckert, & Gubbins, 2007)

• Exposure to reading strategies before being presented with instruction [2nd graders] (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005)

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS

Exposure to vocabulary as a pre-reading strategy

during one 45 minute period twice a week for four

weeks will increase reading comprehension among

ten 5th graders at PS X in Brooklyn, NY as

measured by pre- and post-treatment assessments.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Pre-Experimental/Quasi-Experimental –

• Two non-randomly selected groups

• Designated treatment group (X1)

• Control group (X2)

THREATS TO VALIDITY

Internal threats:

• Instrumentation (pre-assessment vocabulary prep not sufficient to boost comprehension/vocabulary incorrectly chosen, assessment not administered/interpreted correctly)

• History (comprehension troubles are due to factors other than vocabulary comprehension (i.e. cultural/experiential differences from the world of the text, student’s native language is not English, student does not possess phonemic decoding skills))

• Mortality/Differential Selection of Subjects (student absent for assessment due to illness or other family concern)

THREATS TO VALIDITY

External threats:

• Participant effects (ie the Novelty effect – a student’s effort may be dependent on the novelty of participating in the experiment)

• Experimenter effects (ie a student’s effort may be affected by the presence of the researcher)

PRE-TREATMENT/POST-TREATMENT SCORES (SUBJECT GROUP)

AVERAGE INCREASED 0.9 POINTS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

PRE-TREATMENT/POST-TREATMENT SCORES (CONTROL GROUP)

AVERAGE INCREASED 0.1 POINTS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-ASSESSMENT OF READER CONFIDENCE IN

TREATMENT GROUP(0.349015=LOW/FAIR CORRELATION)

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Reading Confidence

Scor

es

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-INITIATED DICTIONARY USE IN TREATMENT GROUP

(0.884985=HIGH CORRELATION)

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dictionary Use

Scor

es

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND PARENTAL READING AS A CHILD IN TREATMENT

GROUP(0.416463=LOW/FAIR CORRELATION)

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Read-to by Parents as a Child

Scor

es

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND REGULAR LIBRARY USAGE IN TREATMENT GROUP

(0.806478=HIGH CORRELATION)

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Library Use

Scor

es

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-ASSESSMENT OF READER CONFIDENCE IN

CONTROL GROUP(-0.23837=LOW CORRELATION)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Reading Confidence

Scor

es

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND SELF-INITIATED DICTIONARY USE IN CONTROL GROUP

(0.690066=FAIR/HIGH CORRELATION)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Dictionary Use

Scor

es

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND PARENTAL READING AS A CHILD IN CONTROL

GROUP(0.790569=FAIR/HIGH CORRELATION)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Parental Reading

Scor

es

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST SCORES AND REGULAR LIBRARY USAGE IN CONTROL GROUP

(0.806478=HIGH CORRELATION)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Library Usage

Scor

es

REFERENCES

Amendum, S.J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M.C. (2011). The effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), 107-131. doi: 10.1086/660684. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660684

 Ash, B. H. (1990). Reading assigned literature in a reading workshop. English Journal,

79, 77-79. http://www.jstor.org/journals/00138274.html August, D., Francis, D.J., Hsu, H.A., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Assessing reading

comprehension in bilinguals. The Elementary School Journal, 107 (2), 221-238. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/510656

 Dougherty Stahl, K. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods on the reading

comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40 (3), 359-393.

 Elish-Piper, L., & L’Allier, S.K. (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy

coaching and student reading gains in grades K–3. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), 83-106. doi: 10.1086/660685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660685 

REFERENCES

Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers. (pp. 191-192, 218). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ferguson, J., & Wilson, J. (2009). Guided reading: it’s for primary teachers. College Reading Association Yearbook, 30, 293-306.

 Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P. & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension

strategies to students with learning disabilities: a review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71 (2), 279-320. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516086

 Hinchley, J., & Levy, B.A. (1988). Developmental and individual differences in reading

comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 5 (1), 3-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233608

 Kletzien, S.B., & Hushion, B.C. (1992). Reading workshop: reading, writing, thinking.

Journal of Reading, 35 (6), 444-451. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007556 Larson, L.C. (2008). Electronic reading workshop: beyond books with new literacies and

instructional technologies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (2), 121-131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111749

REFERENCES

Lausé, J. (2004). Using reading workshop to inspire lifelong readers. The English Journal, 93 (5), 24-30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128931

 Lysynchuk, L.M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N.J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-

comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90 (5), 469-484. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001797

Maney, E.S. (1954). The reading workshop: building pre-reading comprehension skills part 1: vocabulary development. The Reading Teacher, 7 (3), 183-186. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20196764

Meyer, K.E. (2010). A collaborative approach to reading workshop in the middle years. The Reading Teacher, 63 (6), 501-507. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25615840

Oberlin, K.J., & Shugarman, S.L. (1989) Implementing the reading workshop with middle school ld readers. Journal of Reading, 32 (8), 682-687. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40030025

Reis, S.M., McCoach, D.B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F.J., Eckert, R.D., & Gubbins, E.J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: an evidence‐based study. The Elementary School Journal, 108 (1), 3-23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/522383

Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, Jr., R.B. (1991). Organizing for effective instruction: the reading workshop. The Reading Teacher, 44 (8), 548-554. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200734

REFERENCESRoessing, L. (2007). Losing the fear of sharing control: starting a reading workshop. Middle School Journal, 38 (3),

44-51. 

Schaffer, L.M., & Schirmer, B.R. (2010). The guided reading approach: a practical method to address diverse needs in the classroom. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 11 (1), 40-43.

 Scharer, P., Pinnell, G., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63

(2), 24-29. Stewart, R.A., Paradis, E.E., Ross, B.D., & Lewis, M.J. (1996). Student voices: what works in literature-based

developmental reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39 (6), 468-478. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40014036

 Swift, K. (1993). Try reading workshop in your classroom. The Reading Teacher, 46 (5), 366-371.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201090 Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms:

the influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (1), 3-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3203047

 Uttero, D.A. (1988). Activating comprehension through cooperative learning. The Reading Teacher, 41 (4), 390-395.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199801 

Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and fifth graders' reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73 (4), 291-329. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20157404